--- title: "Reforming Hunters to Reduce Snaring in Sumatra, Indonesia" type: "pdf" year: "2024" canonical: "/projects/575" --- # An integrated approach to tackling wildlife crime: Impact and lessons learned from reforming hunters to reduce snaring in a flagship protected area in Sumatra, Indonesia # Table of Contents - [An integrated approach to tackling wildlife crime: Impact and lessons learned from reforming hunters to reduce snaring in a flagship protected area in Sumatra, Indonesia](#an-integrated-approach-to-tackling-wildlife-crime-impact-and-lessons-learned-from-reforming-hunters-to-reduce-snaring-in-a-flagship-protected-area-in-sumatra-indonesia) - [PROJECT SUBMITTED BY](#project-submitted-by) - [Jefry Susyafrianto](#jefry-susyafrianto) - [Kuswandono](#kuswandono) - [Hermawan](#hermawan) - [Elisabeth Devi Krismurniati](#elisabeth-devi-krismurniati) - [Sukatmoko](#sukatmoko) - [Sukarman](#sukarman) - [Fathur Rohman](#fathur-rohman) - [Sugiyo](#sugiyo) - [Feizal Tawaqal](#feizal-tawaqal) - [Muhammad I. Lubis](#muhammad-i-lubis) - [SUMMARY](#summary) - [Scanning](#scanning) - [Analysis](#analysis) - [Response](#response) - [Assessment](#assessment) - [DESCRIPTION](#description) - [SCANNING](#scanning) - [ANALYSIS](#analysis) - [Livelihood patterns and economic dependency in villages surrounding WKNP](#livelihood-patterns-and-economic-dependency-in-villages-surrounding-wknp) - [When and where does snaring occur? Does it overlap with the target species?](#when-and-where-does-snaring-occur-does-it-overlap-with-the-target-species) - [Snaring: A note on measurement](#snaring-a-note-on-measurement) - [(\# snares found / \# km patrolled) * 10 = snares per 10km of patrol (CPUE)](#snares-found-km-patrolled-10-snares-per-10km-of-patrol-cpue) - [Who is setting snares, how do they do it, and what drives their behavior?](#who-is-setting-snares-how-do-they-do-it-and-what-drives-their-behavior) - [RESPONSE](#response) - [ASSESSMENT](#assessment) - [Lessons learned.](#lessons-learned) - [BIBLIOGRAPHY](#bibliography) - [KEY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS](#key-project-team-members) - [Jefry Susyafrianto](#jefry-susyafrianto) - [Kuswandono](#kuswandono) - [Hermawan](#hermawan) - [Elisabeth Devi Krismurniati](#elisabeth-devi-krismurniati) - [Sukatmoko](#sukatmoko) - [Sukarman](#sukarman) - [Fathur Rohman](#fathur-rohman) - [Sugiyo](#sugiyo) - [Feizal Tawaqal](#feizal-tawaqal) - [PROJECT CONTACT PERSON](#project-contact-person) - [Muhammad I. Lubis](#muhammad-i-lubis) - [ACKNOWLEDGEMENT](#acknowledgement) - [APPENDIX A: Images and figures](#appendix-a-images-and-figures) - [APPENDIX B: Tables](#appendix-b-tables) - [Supporting Tables](#supporting-tables) - [Integrated Prevention Model di Taman Nasional Way Kambas](#integrated-prevention-model-di-taman-nasional-way-kambas) ## PROJECT SUBMITTED BY ## Jefry Susyafrianto Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Kuswandono Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Hermawan Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Elisabeth Devi Krismurniati Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Sukatmoko Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Sukarman Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Fathur Rohman Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Republic of Indonesia ## Sugiyo Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program (WCS-IP) ## Feizal Tawaqal Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program (WCS-IP) ## Muhammad I. Lubis Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program (WCS-IP) # SUMMARY ## Scanning Illegal snaring in Way Kambas National Park (WKNP) causes harm to the ungulate species targeted, like deer and pigs, but also to predators, such as the critically endangered Sumatran tiger. Forest ranger patrol data from 2016-2020 showed that $86 \%$ of snaring activity was concentrated in three of the twelve resorts in WKNP; Margahayu, Suskan Baru, and Rawa Bunder (resorts are the smallest administrative sector in the Indonesian national park management system). Patrol data showed that Margahayu and Susukan Baru had chronic snaring problems, whereas snaring in Rawa Bunder was an emerging threat. Margahayu was chosen as the focal resort for the problem analysis and intervention, with the other two resorts acting as 'controls' for comparison. ## Analysis Data from different organizations and agencies were combined to better understand the snaring problem in Margahayu. Snaring was conducted by seventeen individuals, hunting in four different areas of Margahayu. The analysis showed of these seventeen people, nine were initiators who set up hunting trips, and eight were followers. Subsequent conversations with five individuals (three initiators and two followers) revealed they did not enjoy hunting; it was just a source of income, and they would welcome alternative livelihood options. ## Response By the end of 2020, a three-pronged response was initiated. First, in December 2020, support was provided to the five hunters approached during the analysis phase to transition them to duck farming as an alternative livelihood instead of hunting in Margahayu. Concurrently, focused patrols commenced in Margahayu, Susukan Baru and Rawa Bunder targeting notorious snaring locations. Finally, awarenessraising activities were carried out in specific villages in May 2021 to target suspected hunters operating across all three resorts. ## Assessment In Margahayu, snare counts decreased by $94 \%$ in 2021, $84 \%$ in 2022, and $74 \%$ in 2023 compared to the 2020 baseline. In Susukan Baru, there was a $33 \%$ decrease in 2021, followed by a $56 \%$ decrease in 2022, but an alarming $118 \%$ increase in 2023. In Rawa Bunder, snare counts dropped by $97 \%$ in 2021, $93 \%$ in 2022, and $29 \%$ in 2023. The five hunters interviewed revealed that the livelihood projects allowed them to reintegrate into their community without resorting to illegal means of earning a living. Despite earning less from duck farming compared to hunting, they valued the social benefits. Most successfully transformed their duck farms into other legitimate businesses, ensuring sufficient income without relying on hunting. # DESCRIPTION ## SCANNING Way Kambas National Park (WKNP) in southern Sumatra, Indonesia (Figure 1), is an ASEAN Heritage Park known for its diverse habitats and critical role in conserving endangered species like the Sumatran tiger, rhino, and elephant. The park features flat to sloping landscapes, including swamp, lowland rainforest, mangrove, and coastal forests. Despite its protected status, WKNP faces significant human-induced pressures such as hunting and forest clearing through burning. In response, the WKNP office and WCS Indonesia Program initiated a pilot Integrated Prevention Model in 2020 to systematically analyze and address wildlife hunting issues. This innovative approach integrates data from various sources, drawing on problem-oriented policing and crime science, to combat persistent threats like snaring. Given the variety of threats, it was important to choose a specific threat to prioritize and, subsequently, analyze. Snares are one of the most common and insidious direct threats to wildlife, indiscriminately injuring or killing any animal they catch, not only in WKNP but in most protected areas in Indonesia and the wider region. Learning more about preventing this harm would be valuable for protected area management and wildlife protection across the world. Moreover, snaring is a harm with knock-on effects; hunting ungulate species like wild boar and deer can reduce the prey available to predators, such as tigers. Snaring was therefore determined to be a highly relevant and critically important problem to analyze in depth. Snare distribution was analyzed across WKNP as part of the scanning process using patrol data from 20162020 (Figure 2). This revealed that $86 \%$ of all snares were discovered in just three of the twelve resorts in WKNP (resorts are the park's smallest administrative sectors). The data showed that Susukan Baru and Margahayu resorts had experienced snaring problems for years, accounting for $66 \%$ of all snares found. Furthermore, Rawa Bunder, experienced large increases in snaring in 2019 and 2020, indicating that this was an emerging problem. These three sectors border one another on the western boundary of WKNP (Figure 3). Covering a combined area of $289 \mathrm{~km}^{2}$, these three resorts are home to eight neighboring villages housing around 33,500 residents. Margahayu was selected as the project's focal point due to its extensive history of snaring incidents despite sustained conservation efforts, underscoring the need for targeted strategies to address this persistent threat. Susukan Baru and Rawa Bunder served as comparative or control areas to assess the effectiveness of interventions. ## ANALYSIS ## Livelihood patterns and economic dependency in villages surrounding WKNP The Village Independent Index produced by the Ministry of Villages, Development of Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration shows that villages around WKNP are categorized as developing with low income and welfare-dependent households. These economic conditions result in a greater reliance on WKNP for resources. In terms of livelihood, most of the people in WKNP's adjacent villages farm crops such as rice, banana, coconut, and cocoa, with a small number of them working as fishermen, ranchers, or casual laborers. Some people have secondary livelihoods, such as raising livestock or poultry and freshwater fish farming. # When and where does snaring occur? Does it overlap with the target species? The four patrol teams operating in WKNP used handheld GPS units to record their movements and observations of wildlife and illegal activities. Analysis of patrol data showed effort and snaring were not evenly distributed across the three resorts. Patrol effort in Margahayu was consistently higher than the other two resorts each year. While the total number of snares was highest in Margahayu for 2016-2020, annual catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) metrics were much higher in the other two resorts. On average, for every 10 kilometers patrolled in those resorts, teams were two-to-three times more likely to find a snare than in Margahayu (Table 1). This may be the result of historically low patrol effort in these resorts so that over time, hunters perceived the risk of detection being lower there. The patrol data showed that snaring was found consistently throughout the year, with some months showing slightly higher CPUEs than others, but there was no clear or consistent pattern among the three resorts (Table 1; Figure 4). The snares deployed in these areas were typically made of nylon or wire cables (Figure 5), targeting ungulate species like muntjac and sambar deer, mouse deer, and wild boar. ## Snaring: A note on measurement The size of a local snaring problem is difficult to measure. Much like speeding cars, you find snares where you look for them, which means that the number of snares found is related to the search effort. In this case study, we account for this bias by reporting snaring levels using a 'catch-per-uniteffort' (CPUE) metric, reported as the average number of snares discovered per 10km of patrol. ## (\# snares found / \# km patrolled) * 10 = snares per 10km of patrol (CPUE) To enhance our impact assessment, we conducted supplementary analysis on snares occupancy, a metric distinct from CPUE measurement, as it considers the detectability (MacKenzie et al., 2002) of snares - that is, the number overlooked by patrols. Employing multi-season occupancy methods using SMART patrol data, we assessed the trends in snares occurrence from 2018 to 2022. This approach not only factors in patrol efforts but also accounts for the detectability of snares over time. The patrol teams recorded wildlife signs during their patrols (Figure 6), confirming the presence of wildlife in the target area and ensuring that any decrease in snaring is attributable to interventions rather than wildlife absence. Wildlife was consistently observed in all three resorts throughout the study period (Table 1). Figure 7 illustrates a clear correlation between snaring and sightings of ungulate species, with snaring concentrated in specific grids within Margahayu rather than evenly distributed. Analysis of patrol data from 2019-2020 revealed that most snares were found in grids $26,28,35,45,46$, and 56 , which also exhibited a higher number of wildlife signs, water sources, and elephant activity. Additionally, the proximity to roads influenced snare distribution, with areas near roads experiencing more snares due to easier access to the forest. Conversely, areas farther from roads, beyond six kilometers, had no snares but showed abundant wildlife signs, suggesting that hunters prefer setting traps in locations with high prey density and convenient access. # Who is setting snares, how do they do it, and what drives their behavior? Since 2002, WCS has been collecting data on hunting dynamics in Margahayu, gathered from four adjacent villages: Labuhan Ratu VI, Labuhan Ratu VII, Braja Asri, and Braja Yekti. These efforts, prompted by concerns over elephant damage to community properties, involved input from community members, WKNP staff, and Yayasan Badak Indonesia (Rhino Protection Unit-YABI). An incident in 2003, during which WCS observed a hunting group led by IN-04 ${ }^{\text {htr1 }}$ leaving WKNP with five sambars, provided a significant insight into the hunting activity. However, prior to the implementation of the new problem-solving method in 2018, the data collected were not utilized to inform patrols or interventions. Since mid-2019, the project team has been analyzing the gathered information to understand hunting patterns in WKNP. It was found that each hunting group is led by an initiator, typically a respected or capital-endowed hunter, who organizes the hunt. Recruitment of new hunters primarily occurs within family and friendship circles. These groups, each comprised of about four members, typically set around twenty snares per trip, with each snare costing approximately Rp. 120,000 (USD \$8.31). Additionally, provisions for the trip amount to approximately Rp. 180,000 (USD $\$ 12.47$ ) per person, bringing the total cost for an initiator leading a group to Rp. 3,120,000 (USD \$216.16) per trip. This analysis underscores the significant social and human capital held by initiators within their networks. The meat obtained is primarily sold locally in villages surrounding WKNP's resorts, including Margahayu. Although there isn't substantial demand for this wild game within communities, it is priced at Rp. 60,000 (USD \$4.16) - 70,000 (USD \$4.85) per kilogram, which is lower than domestic beef per kilogram, providing a source of income for hunters with limited livelihood options. Moreover, wild game meat, including deer, is often used to subsidize large gatherings such as festivals and weddings, as it mixed with domestic beef for dishes like meatballs to increase quantities at a lower cost. Triangulating data from various sources (Figure 8), the team identified seventeen hunters engaged in snaring activities in Margahayu, including nine initiators (IN-01 to IN-09) and eight followers (FO-01 to FO08). Analysis revealed unique hunting areas (Figure 9) and snaring methods (Table 2) for each initiator, facilitating easy identification by patrol teams and suggesting potential intervention strategies. ## RESPONSE From the Margahayu analysis, it was concluded that hunting is conducted throughout the year and is primarily driven by economic needs, serving as a crucial income source for hunters. Moreover, hunting activities are concentrated in areas with high ungulate species densities, adjacent to water sources, and [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{1}$ Hunters who were not part of the intervention are labeled 'htr' near roads and villages, largely orchestrated by initiators. This allowed us to develop the following updated problem statement: "Hunting for ungulate species (deer and wild boar) using nylon and wire snares in priority grids of Margahayu resort, organized by hunting initiators from villages near Margahayu resort, who are motivated by economic incentives, selling wild meat to local consumers as a cheap alternative to commercial beef". Based on these findings, three different interventions were selected for the response: eliminate benefits, provide alternatives, and set rules. 1. The eliminate benefits intervention involved assigning patrols to target priority grids (i.e., those with high snaring rates) to find and destroy snares; an example of strengthening formal surveillance (Figure 10). This was different than standard patrolling that was usually random and not analysis driven. The focused patrol was initiated in December 2020 (Table 3). 2. The providing alternatives intervention targeted five key hunters ${ }^{2}$ ( $29 \%$ of the total hunters) to help them obtain a legal source of income. These five hunters consisted of three initiators (IN-02 ${ }^{\text {ex }}$, IN- $03^{\text {ex }}$ and IN- $08^{\text {ex }}$ ) and two followers (FO- $01^{\text {ex }}$ and FO- $08^{\text {ex }}$ ). We focused on these hunters as they were approachable and respected among hunters in the villages around Margahayu. These hunters were approached by the project team from WKNP and WCS between May and November 2020, during the analysis process, to determine what motivated their hunting activities and what would stop them from hunting. These individuals did not like earning their income from hunting because it is illegal but saw it as the only way to meet their household livelihood needs. The five hunters had family ties to the head of Labuhan Ratu VI village. Through discussions with the project team, an agreement was made that the village head would approach the five hunters on the condition that the authorities would not pursue any legal prosecution or punishment option against the five hunters. In December 2020, following extensive discussions involving the head of Labuhan Ratu VI village, community leaders, and the five hunters, it was agreed to support the hunters in opening a smallscale duck farming business (Figure 11). Each hunter received fifty ducklings, representing a collective investment of approximately Rp. 4,600,000 (USD \$318.60). This decision was influenced by several factors: a) The initiator hunters expressed a desire for a stable and legal source of income, indicating a readiness to transition away from hunting. b) Ducklings are readily available locally and have a reliable market, making them a practical investment option. c) Ducklings require intensive supervision, particularly during their first thirty days, which would prevent the hunters from running the duck farm alongside hunting in WKNP. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{2}$ Hunters that were part of the intervention are labeled 'ex' d) The time invested in caring for the ducklings offers an opportunity for the hunters to explore alternative livelihood avenues. It was hoped that by redirecting these initiators to alternative livelihoods, their followers would cease hunting, as they might be reluctant to venture into the challenging tropical forest alone, because it requires considerable skill and experience to navigate effectively. 3. The set rules intervention was used to raise awareness amongst hunters and community members about the rules for entering and gathering resources from the national park. It was hoped that involving the reformed hunters in these awareness raising events would encourage other hunters to also stop illegal hunting. Our decision to include the reformed hunters was rooted in two psychological principles from the field of behavior change (Wasserman \& Faust, 1994): Networked: Individuals are part of a network, and the relationships individuals have within these networks can be used to directly influence behavior. Connected: The more connected and invested an individual feels to the message being presented or the messenger, the more impactful the message, and the more likely it is that individuals will change their behavior. Two awareness events were conducted in May 2021 in partnership with Labuhan Ratu Police and the military, covering wildlife and forest crime legislation (Figure 12). The first intervention (focused patrols) and the third intervention (setting rules) were applied in the other two WKNP resorts (Rawa Bunder and Susukan Baru), but the second intervention (providing alternatives) was only applied to hunters operating in Margahayu resort. Table 3 summarizes the timeline for the implementation of the Integrated Prevention Model. # ASSESSMENT Each of the three interventions, whether implemented individually or in combination, has had a significant impact on reducing the threat of snares to wildlife communities. Here's a summary of the findings from these interventions. 1. The five hunters engaged in the alternative livelihood program entirely abandoned hunting, confirmed by patrol data and regular meetings with the individuals. At no point were they prosecuted through the criminal justice system (Figure 13). 2. According to the patrol data, snaring dramatically decreased in Margahayu, dropping by $94 \%$ in 2021 compared to the 2020 baseline (Figure 14), and although snaring slightly increased in 2022, the level is much lower than that recorded in 2020. Meanwhile, in 2023, snaring decreased compared to 2022. 3. In 2021, snaring also reduced in the two comparison (control) resorts; reducing by 33\% in Susukan Baru, and 97\% in Rawa Bunder. In 2022, snaring in Susukan Baru dramatically decreased, but in Rawa Bunder it increased, although was still lower than the 2020 baseline. These reductions hint at a diffusion of benefits which needs to be investigated further. However, in Susukan Baru, there was a drastic increase in snaring in 2023 compared to 2021 and 2022. In Rawa Bunder, there was a slight decrease compared to 2022. 4. The additional analysis using occupancy modeling approaches reveals a consistent pattern in the probability of snare occupancy from 2018 to 2022, mirroring the trends observed in the CPUE metric. In Margahayu, the trend in snares occupancy declined annually, from $0.72( \pm 0.15)$ in 2018 (pre-intervention) to $0.43( \pm 0.12)$ in 2020 (at the outset of the intervention) and further to 0.26 ( $\pm 0.12$ ) in 2022 (post-intervention). A similar pattern is observed in Rawa Bunder Resort. However, in Susukan Baru, snares occurrences remained relatively stable between 2020 and 2022 (Figure 15). Please note that the data for 2023 was not included as it is currently being processed. 5. Hunters not engaged with the targeted intervention have continued snaring but detected snaring rates continued to reduced by more than $80 \%$ across all three sectors, suggesting that the targeted interventions were responsible for the positive impact on snaring (Figure 13). 6. One of the former hunters, who now offers butchering services in the community, noted a rise in local demand for beef. This could be due to decreased availability of wild meat, although other factors may also contribute. 7. The awareness raising events seemed to not only have a positive impact in Margahayu resort but also appeared to have influenced hunters in Susukan Baru and Rawa Bunder resorts through a 'snowball effect'. In these events, the five reformed hunters demonstrated how to transition to a legal livelihood, inspiring other active hunters to stop illegal activities in the forest. While these data are from the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is not believed that hunting activities were directly impacted by Covid-19 restrictions since hunting continued to supply wild meat to local markets during this time and there were almost no local movement restrictions that would have impacted this activity. # Lessons learned. 1. The Integrated Prevention Model created processes for the collation of information from multiple sources which enabled analyses that were based on a wide range of data and a wide range of interventions from patrols to community events to livelihood projects. The Integrated Prevention Model also utilized an adaptive management cycle where managers and analysts regularly reviewed new information and adjusted the implementation of the interventions. 2. Dedicated problem-solving analysts were essential for this project. Different data sets required analyzing and collating to build a picture of the priority factors driving the snaring threat. Throughout this project, the analysts received training and mentoring in problem-solving techniques. 3. Managers were heavily involved in the SARA process, working closely with analysts. They also received training in problem-solving and were given flexibility by senior managers to pursue novel interventions. 4. Maintaining consistent patrol efforts throughout the year poses challenges due to shifting priority issues. For instance, in 2023 (Figure 16), patrols in Rawa Bunder were limited to just two occasions, as efforts were redirected to prioritize the five key resorts: Margahayu, Susukan Baru, Wako Sekapuk, Rantau Jaya, and Umbul Salam, to address illegal activities including forest fire in WKNP. 5. It was essential to establish trust and comprehend the hunters' backgrounds and motivations thoroughly. This deep understanding challenged our longstanding assumptions regarding the reasons behind hunting and the measures necessary to reduce it. Such insights facilitated the creation of tailored interventions. Without this understanding, our strategy would have relied solely on patrols, arrests, and punitive measures, which, in previous years, had proven ineffective in substantially reducing hunting activities. 6. However, sustaining engagement with the hunters demanded ongoing dedication, whereas the hunters' immediate financial needs were subject to frequent changes. For instance, in 2023, three hunters who had undergone interventions, namely IN- $08^{\text {ex }}$, FO- $01^{\text {ex }}$, and FO- $08^{\text {ex }}$, resumed setting snares in grids 35 and 45 . This lapse occurred due to reduced monitoring and mentoring of these individuals. Consequently, we continued to monitor them closely through regular visits. FO- $08^{\text {ex }}$ is currently serving a prison sentence for bird hunting, but we have provided some support to his family. IN- $08^{\text {ex }}$ has ceased hunting but occasionally acts as a mediator for selling hunting yields. Similarly, FO- $01^{\text {ex }}$ has stopped hunting but remains actively engaged in fishing within the park boundaries. We maintain regular contact with IN- $08^{\text {ex }}$ and FO- $01^{\text {ex }}$, providing conservation messages to discourage their involvement in illegal hunting activities. 7. The 80 / 20 principle was evident. Most of snares in Way Kambas analyzed during this project were located in $23 \%$ of the area, three of the twelve resorts. This, and other concentrations such as in offenders and snare locations, allowed for interventions to be highly focused, maximizing impact without overloading the project team's workload or patrol schedules. 8. Comparing costs, purchasing livestock for hunters at Rp. 4,600,000 (USD \$318.60) proved more cost-effective than patrols costing at least Rp 90,000,000 (USD \$5,700) annually. Though patrols are vital for forest monitoring and removing snares, this intervention effectively curbed hunting at a lower cost. 9. Implementation of the alternative intervention from January to December 2021 yielded promising outcomes. Despite only $51 \%$ of the provided ducks being sold after six months, generating a total revenue of Rp. 4,910,000 (USD $\$ 340.18$ ) across the five hunters, the income exceeded the initial investment by WCS of Rp. 4,600,000 (USD $\$ 318.60$ ). However, the duck farming revenue was insufficient to replace hunting income, which can amount to Rp. 3,944,000 (USD \$250) per month for each offender, with initiators earning additional income of up to Rp. 600,000 (USD \$38) per month. Nonetheless, the targeted hunters ceased snare hunting activities within the resort area. Instead, they explored alternative legal ventures, including catfish farming, cattle raising, construction work, cassava harvesting, and vegetable gardening. 10. Snares discovered in 2021 and 2022 were located in grids frequented by IN- $05^{\text {htr }} / \mathrm{IN}-07^{\text {htr }}$, IN- $10^{\text {htr }}$, and IN- $04^{\text {htr }}$ (Figures 17), hunters not involved in the alternative provision intervention. Based on gathered data, it's inferred that IN- $10^{\text {htr }}$ has emerged as a new initiator, encroaching into IN- $04^{\text {htr }}$ 's hunting grounds to expand their territory. 11. While the project caused a large reduction in detected snares, hunting continued, indicating the need to scale this approach to the next priority resorts and their resident hunters. 12. The success of the interventions was in large part due to the hunters trusting the project team and community leaders. Had the intention of this project been to prosecute the hunters and send them to prison, it is unlikely that these interventions would have been possible. 13. An intervention that is going well opens more opportunities for future interventions as more information is gained from the relationships that are built. The very promising results from the WKNP case study have received national attention and have been used to rethink law enforcement strategies aimed at reducing hunting in three other national parks in Indonesia. This case study has also been included in a guide produced by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and Environment titled '100+ Innovations of the Directorate General Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation' (Wiratno et al., 2022; Appendix C). This project is adding to the evidence base for the problem-oriented approach, helping other efforts to protect wildlife in Indonesia and around the world. # BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, A.A. \& Langtimm, C.A. (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248-2255. Wasserman, S. \& Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. In Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences p. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wiratno, Sya'Bani, B., NisAa, Z., Sumidi, Ariyanto, A.C. \& Anggoro, M.D. (eds) (2022) 100+ Inovasi KSDAE. Direktorat Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam dan Ekosistem, Jakarta. ## KEY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS ## Jefry Susyafrianto Director of Conservation Areas Management, Directorate General Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation, Ministry of Forestry and Environment ## Kuswandono Former head of the Way Kambas National Park Office, Way Kambas National Park, Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62812-9462-109$ ## Hermawan Head of Administration Division, Way Kambas National Park, Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62857-7590-4734$ ## Elisabeth Devi Krismurniati Head of Data, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting, Way Kambas National Park Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62882-6828-6323$ ## Sukatmoko Head of Public Relations, Information and Documentation Management, Promotion, and Permit, Way Kambas National Park, Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62823-7525-0099$ ## Sukarman Head of Personnel Division, Way Kambas National Park Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62812-7203-5005$ ## Fathur Rohman Head of Program and Budgeting, Way Kambas National Park Labuhan Ratu, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62812-4607-442$ ## Sugiyo Way Kambas Landscape Manager, Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program Braja Sakti, Lampung Timur 34396 $+62811-7217-050$ ## Feizal Tawaqal Data Collector, Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Program Braja Sakti, Lampung Timur 34375 $+62821-1602-0685$ ## PROJECT CONTACT PERSON ## Muhammad I. Lubis Senior Wildlife Conservation Strategist, Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia Program Jalan Malabar 1 No. 11, Babakan, Bogor Tengah - Bogor West Java 16128, +62822-3665-3274 E-mail: mlubis@wcs.org [Corresponding author] # ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We express our sincere gratitude to the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry for granting permission for the piloting project aimed at preventing wildlife crime through Problem-Oriented Wildlife Protection. Special thanks are extended to Mas Adhi Hadi for his unwavering support throughout the project. We deeply appreciate the guidance provided by Andrew Lemieux from LEAD Conservation and Jonathan Hunter in introducing, training, and coaching us, as well as to William Marthy for his leadership during the project implementation. Our heartfelt thanks also go to Wahyu Savitri, M. Kautsar, Didi Aryadi, and the entire Way Kambas field team for their tireless dedication to the local community. # APPENDIX A: Images and figures ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-0.jpeg) Figure 1. Location of Way Kambas National Park in Sumatra, Indonesia ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-1.jpeg) **Figure 2. Snares detected by patrols in Way Kambas National Park, 2016-2020** ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-2.jpeg) Figure 3. Distribution of snares and ranger patrol effort in the 12 resorts in Way Kambas National Park, 2016-2020 ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-3.jpeg) Figure 4. Snare catch-per-unit-effort in Margahayu, Susukan Baru, Rawa Bunder (2016-2020) ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-4.jpeg) Figure 5. Examples of snares found in Margahayu resort (Left; nylon snare with jagged zinc plate, and right; small wire cable snare) ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-5.jpeg) Figure 6. Ungulate species catch-per-unit-effort in Margahayu, Susukan Baru, Rawa Bunder (2016-2020) ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-6.jpeg) **Figure 7. Ungulate species distribution in Margahayu resort, 2016-2020** Problem solving team started to organze all the information on potential offenders and their network in the WKNP Approach Head Labuhan Ratu VI village and was directed to meet IN-02, IN-03, IN-08 Discussions with IN-02, IN-03, IN-08 9 initiators and 8 followers identified, where 3 initiators and 2 followers were selected for intervention Analyze the hunters Generating information on poachers in the Margahayu sector (17 hunters) ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-7.jpeg) Figure 9. Areas used by different hunting initiators in Margahayu resort ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-8.jpeg) Figure 10. Targeted patrols in priority grids in Margahayu resort ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-9.jpeg) Figure 11. The selected hunters preparing to open their small-scale duck farms in Margahayu resort in December 2020 ![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-10.jpeg) Figure 12. Meetings were held to engage suspected poachers and disseminate wildlife protection regulations in May 2021 (above) and in October 2021 (below) ![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-11.jpeg) **Figure 13. Distribution of snares after the intervention in Margahayu resort in 2021 – September 2023, with pre-intervention hunting areas labelled to show where the five project-assisted hunters had ceased their poaching activities** ![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-12.jpeg) Figure 14. Snares detected by patrols in Way Kambas National Park, 2016-2023. The decline in patrol efforts in 2023 can be attributed to a shift in focus towards addressing other illegal activities, such as forest fires. ![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-13.jpeg) Figure 15. Probability of snares occupancy using patrol data in Way Kambas National Park, 20162022. Note that the data for 2023 was not included as it is currently being processed. ![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-14.jpeg) Figure 16. Comparison of patrol efforts in 2020-2023 in Margahayu, Susukan Baru, Rawa Bunder. It reveals a notable decrease in patrol activity in 2023, particularly in Rawa Bunder. This decline can be attributed to the shift in focus towards addressing other illegal activities such as forest fires in 2023. ![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/indonesia_ministry_of_environment_reforming_hunters_to_reduce_snaring_in_sumatra_indonesia_2024/img-15.jpeg) Figure 17. Examples of the initiator IN-10 setting snares in grid 28 (left, 2022), compares to snares set by IN-04 who previously set snares in the same grid (2021, right) # APPENDIX B: Tables ## Supporting Tables Table 1: Snares recovered, tracks and signs of wild boar and deer observed, and patrol team effort (Jan 2016- Dec 2022) | Margahayu | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | CPUE (snares per 10 km ) | 5.6 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 4.4 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | | CPUE (prey per 10 km ) | 9.3 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 5.1 | 5.7 | | Snares | 113 | 42 | 51 | 65 | 168 | 11 | 27 | 16 | | Signs of prey species | 188 | 115 | 205 | 252 | 280 | 271 | 204 | 138 | | Patrol effort (km) | 202 | 230 | 376 | 478 | 386 | 333 | 402 | 243 | | Susukan Baru | | | | | | | | | | CPUE (snares per 10 km) | 10.5 | 9.5 | 6.0 | 2.1 | 8.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 2.8 | | CPUE (prey per 10 km ) | 3.3 | 5.8 | 8.0 | 6.2 | 12.8 | 7.8 | 8.9 | 5.2 | | Snares | 61 | 148 | 73 | 35 | 128 | 80 | 59 | 122 | | Signs of prey species | 19 | 91 | 97 | 101 | 187 | 297 | 335 | 226 | | Patrol effort (km) | 58 | 156 | 122 | 163 | 146 | 383 | 378 | 435 | | Rawa Bunder | | | | | | | | | | CPUE (snares per 10 km) | 2.3 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 11.6 | 3.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 9.8 | | CPUE (prey per 10 km ) | 4.7 | 7.2 | 8.0 | 9.2 | 11.8 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 13.7 | | Snares | 20 | 2 | 10 | 193 | 102 | 3 | 7 | 5 | | Signs of prey species | 40 | 109 | 148 | 152 | 324 | 283 | 327 | 7 | | Patrol effort (km) | 86 | 151 | 186 | 166 | 274 | 333 | 382 | 5.12 | | | Average CPUEs before and after intervention | | | | | * Note: The coefficient of variation (CV), or the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, was less than 0.5 for all of the average CPUEs except snaring in Margahayu (pre) and Rawa Bunder (pre \& post). High variability in the CPUEs means the average should be interpreted carefully for Rawa Bunder. For Maraghayu, we see that CPUEs in the post-intervention period never went above $50 \%$ of the lowest CPUE during the pre-intervention period. | | | | Resort | Before | | After | | | | | | | | Snares* | Prey | Snares | Prey | | | | | | Margahayu | 2.9 | 6.4 | 0.6 | 6.3 | | | | | | Susukan Baru | 7.4 | 7.2 | 2.1 | 7.3 | | | | | | Rawa Bunder | 3.6 | 8.2 | 3.3 | 10.3 | | | | | Table 2: Types of snares installed by poaching initiators in Margahayu resort. | Initiator | Snare Type | | :--: | :-- | | IN-08 | Snare uses a stick*. The stick diameter is < 17 cm. Two small cables are wrapped together to make one snare | | IN-07 | Does not use a bent stick to provide tension to the snare, the snare is tightened by the animal pulling against the cable. Uses material from motorcycle tire, two small cables are wrapped together to make one snare | | IN-03 | Snare uses a stick*. The stick diameter is >20 cm, three small cables are wrapped together to make one snare | | IN-04 | Snare uses a stick*. The stick diameter is < 17 cm, the launcher stick is tied with roots rather than wire. Two small cables are wrapped together to make one snare | * These snares use a 'launcher' stick bent over to provide tension to the snare, pulling the noose tight when the snare is triggered by an animal Table 3. Summary of Integrated Prevention Model implementation according to the SARA process | SARA process and Intervention Implementation | | Month Commenced | | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Scanning | | May 2020 | | Analysis | | May 2020 | | | Eliminate Benefits | December 2020 | | | Providing Alternatives | December 2020 | | | Set Rules | May 2021 | | Assessment | September 2022 | | APPENDIX C: Published materials Integrated Prevention Model in Way Kambas National Park include in the book "100+ Innovations of the Directorate General Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation" Ministry of Forestry and Environment Indonesia # Integrated Prevention Model di Taman Nasional Way Kambas Kuswandono ${ }^{5}$, Sugiyo ${ }^{6}$, Didi Aryadi ${ }^{7}$, M. Kautsar ${ }^{8}$ Kelimpahan sumberdaya alam yang relatif lebih tinggi di dalam kawasan konservasi dibandingkan dengan kawasan di sekitarnya menjadi daya tarik tersendiri bagi masyarakat yang tinggal di sekitarnya. Upaya untuk mengakses SDA tersebut dengan tidak mengindahkan aturan dan norma cenderung akan menjadi tekanan terhadap pengelolaan kawasan konservasi. Tekanan terhadap pengelolaan kawasan konservasi mulai dari perburuan, perambahan, penebangan liar dan pembakaran hutan selalu menjadi ancaman bagi pencapain tujuan pengelolaan dari setiap kawasan konservasi. Berbagai upaya telah dilakukan mulai dari yang bersifat preventif dan persuasif (seperti kegiatan patroli, pembinaan dan penyadartahuan kepada masyarakat sekitar) maupun represif (melalui penegakan hukum), tetapi kegiatan ilegal masih terus tercatat terjadi di dalam kawasan konservasi, terutama perburuan satwa dengan menggunakan jerat. Pertanyaannya adalah bagaimana menekan kegiatan perburuan di dalam kawasan atau memastikan tidak ada lagi temuan jerat?